BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM

Why have any trial at all? Why look at the evidence? Why bother risking a JURY might let him go?

Is that what you are saying???

No, that's what YOU'RE saying, Beardy, or rather shouting/ranting.

I haven't read anything by Bobert that says or remotely implies any of your screed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM

And as for "poisoning the jury pool", I think the existing press coverage has done so quite well. Just look at Bobert not even needing a trial or evidence to declare it a murder,

I would bet that if the defendent was Black, and the victim white, most here would insist that he was "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM

And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this:

"I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him."

Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:00 AM

So, Bobert,

Since YOU know he is guilty of murder ( from the news releases)
WHY NOT JUST find a tree and lynch him?

Why have any trial at all? Why look at the evidence? Why bother risking a JURY might let him go?

Is that what you are saying???

The point of this thread is that the PROSECUTION is not acting in accord with the law, REGARDLESS OF THE CASE.

This is a reason for mistrial, and LETTING HIM OFF.


DO YOU WANT HIM TO GET OFF EVEN IF HE IS GUILTY?????

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 09:02 AM

The key question is how far the obligation of disclosure extends.

Plainly there will have been some things on Martin's phone that would NOT have been evidence in this trial. For example if some weeks before his death he had been texting friends to arrange to go to see a film or a band - that would be completely irrelevant to the trial, and so under UK rules not obliged to be disclosed.

Equally, as Bobert says, material that might or might not have shown Martin with a gun or with drugs weeks before the night in question cannot possibly be evidence of anything happening on the night in question. What they might be is evidence of bad character and I would have thought that would clearly not be admissible - and so not evidence of relevance to the case.

It's interesting that (AFAIK) Zimmerman is still not relying on "Stand Your Ground" laws - is he?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 10:13 PM

Bobert, I do understand what you're saying, and very much share your concerns.

My thought/hope is that the (potential) "silver lining" at this point, is that if Zimmerman is found "not guilty", there are grounds for a mistrial - on the basis that (as you put it) "the waters have been poisoned" - making a fair trial pretty near impossible.

Maybe it could even end up in the Supreme Court and set a precedent...

P.S.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm convinced they played extra dirty in our case because if we won, it would have set a precedent (about certain kinds of speed cameras set on curves being inaccurate - all over the country), and opened them up to possible lawsuits due to many previous fines, lost licenses, etc becoming questionable - which would have cost them huge amounts of £££. (BTW, £15,000 = $25-30,000)

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:19 PM

Well, YY... I am sorry that you got screwed by the system in the UK... And you did get screwed... Bankruptcy for speeding ticket is unreal...

This is the kind of kangaroo court system that I am scared of here in the US...

90% of people here in the US think that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife... Okay, maybe 97%???

But he got away with it...

That's what I don't want to see here with Zimmerman...

Again, the case is just this simple:

1. Zimmerman sees Martin...

2. Zimmerman call police...

3. Police tell Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle...

4. Zimmerman ignores police...

5. Zimmerman murders Martin...

THE END...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:33 PM

McGrath of Harlow, Bobert, and Don - I agree with all of your most recent posts.

The reason I have such strong feelings about the wrongness of withholding evidence is that (as I mentioned before) I have sad experience (here in the U.K.) of being on the receiving end of withheld evidence (and of a judge who had already made up his mind).

My husband and I fought a speeding ticket (my husband knows his physics and realised that the camera which "caught" us speeding was set on a curve, which made its calculations inaccurate).

We didn't have a lot of money (couldn't afford a solicitor), but my husband firmly believed that the British system of justice is one of the best in the world, and was sure that we would get a fair hearing. What we experienced was a real eye-opener, and included a number of... "irregularities", including withholding of evidence (of various types) the laws say we were entitled to.

We kept fighting/appealing (against the advice of both sets of parents) because we believed it would be wrong to just knuckle under - even when we began to see just how overwhelmingly the deck is stacked against anyone without the money to make the system work in their favor.

We were found guilty and ordered to pay £15,000 court costs - which we did not have - so eventually filed for bankruptcy.

I know what happened to us is nothing, nothing, nothing! compared to what is happening to Trayvon - and has happened to so many other people. My sense of outrage - for them as well as for myself - remains.

(Note: I've tried to keep my account brief. I have written - in greater detail - on Mudcat about it once before; if you're interested, you can find it in this thread/post.)

But - that is why anyone arguing in favor of withholding evidence hits a very sore spot for me. Overall, I think we all agree that the "system" is not working as it should (to put it mildly) - in the US, and in many other places as well. Even more distressing is that there are many, many more places where it's much, much worse.

The BIG question is - how do we change things so they are fair?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM

Like it or not, the sad truth is that in both the US and the UK innocent people are doing life or rotting on Death Row because the prosecution- police, DA etc.- DELIBERATELY withheld evidence which would have helped the case for the defence.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM

The answer to your question, YY can be found in my 7:16PM post last night... The judge should have put both the defense and prosecutor under a gag order... He obviously didn't and Zimmerman's attorney took advantage of it...

This is where my problem is with the way this case is being conducted... That is irresponsible on the judge's part... Heck, once the trial begins I don't give a rat's ass what evidence people try to introduce as if the judge say's "Hey, this ain't evidence" then the jury may not hear any of it or very little of it before the judge tells them to "disregard"...

But what is happening is that the initial phase of the trial has begun in public and in a case of this stature there is no way in hell that the jury pool isn't being poisoned...

That is wrong... It is immoral... It is not fair to Trevon Martin or his family... I mean, they don't get to appeal if Zimmerman's attorney pulls a Johnny Cochran and get's this guy off by some very unethical trickery...

So I hold the judge at fault right now... He needs to assert Travon's Martin's rights, too... And he isn't doing that...

Like I said earlier... If you get some judge who has pretty much made up his or her mind they might let something slide... You have to remember that in the South lots of judges are elected and, where you might not like it, have partisan views of things...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:19 PM

" A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

....

White led the Nassau County state attorney's office before resigning in December, citing differences of opinion with Corey. He is now in private practice.

White said the photos Kruidbos retrieved were of a hand holding a gun and one depicted drugs. The content of the text messages wasn't specified.

"I'm an officer of the court and I'm obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it's by the defense or prosecution," White said."

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:11 PM

So the ethical thing for the defence lawyer would have been to ensure that the relevant judge received and considered the evidence, but done so in such a way that it woulld be kept in confidence, and not revealed to the public.

The question of whether the proescution ought to have passed it to the defence is another matter. But in the light of the unethcal conduct demonstrated by the defence lawyers it would make much more sense for it to be revealed to the judge to pass to the defence if it was determined as relevant.

But maybe commnsense in such matters is as absent as ethics.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 11:53 AM

"BTW, YY... You one one hand admits that the incident with the high school woman shouldn't be considered "evidence" but on the other hand saying that you are okay with some judge down the road should choose what is evidence and what is not..."

So, Bobert... if not the judge, then who? Let the prosecution and defense decide for themselves? Sorry, but I trust them even less than I trust "some judge down the road". Is there someone else you would suggest? Problem is, the decision will be made by someone - even if it's just by default/not specifying who.

Sadly, in practice (as opposed to theory), the question is not so much "Who do you trust most to do the right thing?" but rather "Who do you mistrust least?".

I agree with you and McG of H that it stinks that "The attorney puts out the shit bomb and then says, "Gee, sorry"...".
That does poison the jury pool, and should not be allowed.
But - when it comes down to it - that is (yet another) separate issue.

As I see it, we have the following issues that we've been discussing:
1) Should it be legal to withhold evidence?
2) Who should decide what evidence is admissible?
3) How do you keep inadmissible evidence out of the media/public domain?

These issues all affect each other and it can be hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.

The answer to 3 does not have an easy solution (as if any of them do...). The judge putting a gag order on both defense and prosecution is an idea I like. Sadly, that hasn't happened this time. Why not, I can guess, but can't honestly say I know. Perhaps we should have a law requiring such gag orders rather than leaving it up to the judge in a case.

Some countries do not allow media to report such kinds of developments in a trial until the jury has been selected or sequestered - or even until the trial is over. There's much to be said for that approach, although questions of Freedom of Speech arise, and can be very complicated to sort through.

I agree with you both (and many others) that it's appalling and unfair, and that in our country (the US) the outcome of a trial is much more likely to be decided by
1) how much money you have available
and
2) whether you're a member of the majority or of a minority
(and in that order) than by your actual guilt or innocence, which is disgraceful.

But I still do not wish to give the defense or the prosecution the legal OK to withhold any evidence they don't like.

I repeat my question above: who do you think should be allowed to decide whether evidence is relevant/admissible?

This is not an attack. I am genuinely interested in your answer to that question. I'm open to the possibility that you have a solution that hasn't occurred to me and is fairer than the current setup.

Cheers,

YY

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 09:03 PM

Yes, this is the way it is played, McG...

The attorney puts out the shit bomb and then says, "Gee, sorry"...

This is like a boxer who hits low until the ref calls him and then says, "Gee, sorry"...

This was all intentional on Zimmerman's attorney's part... ALL!!!

It is intended to poison the jury pool just the way that Johnny Cockran did it in the O.J. trial...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 08:57 PM

Some of these US lawyers seem to play it very dirty indeed, and get away with it scot free.

I googled Zimmerman and up came this:

George Zimmerman's attorneys apologize for mischaracterizing evidence

...Lawyer Mark O'Mara said during a hearing last Tuesday that the defense had obtained video footage of three fights, including one in which he said two of Martin's friends "were beating up a homeless guy."

But Zimmerman's defense team corrected that statement on Sunday, saying O'Mara had unintentionally "misstated the nature" of the footage. In a statement posted on Zimmerman's website, the defense lawyers said the footage actually showed "two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike...."

"Unintentionally misstated". "Pigs seen flying low over Florida courthouse..."

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM

BTW, YY... You one one hand admits that the incident with the high school woman shouldn't be considered "evidence" but on the other hand saying that you are okay with some judge down the road should choose what is evidence and what is not...

The issue is that Zimmerman's attorneys are using the public media to introduce what they want, regardless of it's value, in an attempt to poison the jury pool...

This ain't Perry "F'n" Mason here... Common sense tells anyone with an IQ on the plus side of an animal cracker that the pics taken days before Martin was murdered by Martin and of Martin could not have 1 chance in a trillion gazillion of having any bearing on his murder...

Same exact scenario with the girl in high school...

This is what racism looks like...

The entire system is doing a rope-a-dope to get Zimmerman off...

There will be no fair trial... That is now guaranteed... Zimmerman's hired guns have shot that possibility to hell and back...

This is the worst of the American justice system... It looks rigged...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:16 PM

Here's the deal...

What Zimmerman's attorney is getting away with amounts to prejudicing perspective jurors and thus creating a scenario for a mistrial... The judge should put a gag order on both the defense and the prosecutor so that it will be possible to seat a jury that won't be prejudiced based on what is being released in the news...

That is the way it is done...

I'm sniffing O.J., Part II and frankly don't give a rip what anyone here thinks about my observations... I know the law pretty good, ya'll... Better, I'd say, than the folks here who think they know the law...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:23 PM

Of course the fact that a jurge rules stuff inadmissable doesn't stop jurors being fully aware of it. And the American system does appear to allow the lawyers an awful lot of leeway to make sure that they are so aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:17 PM

A bullet from the back of a bush
Took Medgar Evers' blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain...

But he sure as hell can be blamed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 02:15 PM

AMEN to that YY!

Don T.

P.S. I too hope this scumbag gets his comeupance, but honestly, not by prosecutors making decisions which are not theirs to make.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 01:57 PM

No, Bobert, the high school incident absolutely should NOT be considered admissible evidence. And I, too, trust that "any reasonable judge will tell Zimmerman's lawyer to stick with the case at hand".

BUT, this is not about whether those photos are admissible evidence.

What it is about is: WHO DECIDES whether or not they are admissible?

Do you want interested parties to determine whether or not something is admissibe - or someone who is supposed to be neutral? (Defence and prosecution are not even supposed to be neutral - it's their job not to be.)

The discovery IS evidence - just not admissible evidence concerning this case. But the prosecution should not be the one(s) to make that decision. I don't wish to just blithely trust they will resist the temptation to ignore evidence that undermines their argument(s). (Likewise, I don't trust the defense to do so, either.)

Here's a thought experiment: lets pretend there are texts on Sallie's phone saying she is angry at the defendant and has decided to punish him by accusing him of rape. Do you want the prosecution to be legally allowed to decide this is "inadmissible evidence"?

I would prefer to have the judge decide.

The same law which helps someone who is innocent one day may well do the opposite on another (or even the very same) day.

Our laws (are supposed to) help protect nasty, guilty scumbags as well as innocent people - because we are fallible and don't necessarily know which is which.

Trying to be fair means you legally must treat people the same way, whether you think they "deserve" it or not. Does this make any sense to you yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:54 PM

The sanity or lack of same of potential evidence is to be decided by the judge---not the prosecutor and certainly not by Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 09:32 AM

This all boils down to what is "evidence"...

Let's say that Sallie got pregnant in high school by one of the football players and ended up getting an abortion...

Ten years later she is raped by someone else...

Should the high school incident be admissible "evidence" that she deserved to be raped???

So back to Martin...

Will either of you tell me why you think that pictures on Martin's cell phone that were taken prior to his murder that had NOTHING to do with his murder is "evidence" in the case???

I mean, "evidence" is about the facts surrounding a crime... It's not a fishing expedition thru a victim's past life...

I disagree with both of you... And I trust that any reasonable judge will tell Zimmerman's lawyer to stick with the case at hand...

This "discovery" is way beyond the any sane interpretation of "evidence"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:27 AM

Sorry Bobert, but on this one I have to agree with Yorkshire Yankee.

If the rule says all evidence known to the prosecution must also be known to the defence, then that is what should happen.

I am inclined to think that the rule itself is wrong, but, umtil it is revoked it must be obeyed.

The judge will have the final word and will be aware of the likely effect on a jury, so the decision will be based on his assessment of that effect.

He will, if honest, rule it inadmissible, on the basis that Trayvon Martin is not on trial.

If US law is anything like UK law, the prosecution will not be allowed to evince evidence of Zimmerman's previous record until and unless a guilty verdict is returned.

Therefore it would be unfair to allow Martin's character to be blackened by the defence, using evidence outwith the scope of the incident being tried.

Still, the bottom line is, the prosecution were out of order in failing to pass on that evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:22 AM

"What I am getting out of this is that Zimmerman's lawyer wants to use photographs on Martin's phone as evidence from before the incident that Martin deserved to be murdered..."

Bobert, I agree with you that Zimmerman's defense should not be allowed to use that information. The judge in the case should not allow it.

BUT... look at it this way: who do you think should be in charge of whether evidence is allowable in court or not: people like the prosecution and defense - who have a definite interest in wanting the case to go a certain way - or the judge, who is at least supposed to be impartial?

If you want the judge to have this power, then he must be aware of all the evidence, and both defense and prosecution must make whatever evidence they have available to the court. If you don't require both defense & prosecution to turn over all their evidence, then you are leaving the decision in their extremely partial hands (now there's an interesting image!) - and they are much less likely to be impartial than the judge.

For example: if you, Bobert, have been charged with running over some poor kittycat, and the prosecution find photos on the kitty's cellphone showing you playing happily with said kitty, do you want them to be the ones who get to decide whether that information is/is not "relevant" enough to be included in the information presented in the trial? Or would you rather have the judge make that call?

I have personal experience of police and prosecution working together to withhold evidence (even though that is illegal) which would have proved I was innocent, and I can tell you that letting one side or the other control what evidence comes to light is not the way to go. Make both sides reveal everything they know, and let a (hopefully impartial) judge decide what the jury gets to hear.

(Of course, if the judge is not impartial, then there's very little hope for anything resembling a fair trial, but that's not the issue under discussion here...)

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 10:39 PM

Good Christ.

The prosecution is not allowed to keep any information it hopes to use from the defense. That's the law. It was instituted to prevent just such happening. You all are entitled to your respective opinions, but you are NOT entitled to interpret law in anyway that harms the accused. That's it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 08:56 PM

Thank you, TIA...

The last 20 years of my working life when I was in business for myself I had to represent my company in court at least a couple dozen times and had a reputation of destroying local attorneys in court... I never lost a case... No brag, just fact...

The law is pretty simple...

The way that attorneys practice it ain't...

But when you just strip off all the shit they pile on then you win...

Zimmerman's attorney is piling on truckload after truckload of shit...

Prosecution should be able to shovel all the shit off the facts...

All depends on the judge... If the judge is some Southern racist, he or she will allow Zimmerman's attorney to put Martin's prior pics from his cell phone into evidence...

If he isn't a racist then he'll disallow...

Pretty simple stuff here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 08:39 PM

Bobert has explained it in terms that anyone can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:48 PM

This is a sideshow that Zimmerman's attorney is using to lay a big old smoke screen over the trial...

O.J. who???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:21 PM

What an incomprehensible report. What kind of people do the Miami Herald employ to make such a dog's dinner of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:21 PM

What an incomprehensible report. What kind of people do the Miami Herald employ to make such a dog's dinner of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:14 PM

"BY KYLE HIGHTOWER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.

White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda."

Part of the article BB was getting the info from. Read the article at

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3422519/lawyer-zimmerman-prosecutor-withheld.html

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:11 PM

What I am getting out of this is that Zimmerman's lawyer wants to use photographs on Martin's phone as evidence from before the incident that Martin deserved to be murdered...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:07 PM

Bobert, you've got me all confused, now!

I thought it was the prosecution withholding this evidence 'cos they didn't want the defense to even know about it. Am I wrong on this?

Thing is, if it's not right to withhold evidence, it's not right to withhold evidence - regardless of whether you think it will help a scumbag/hurt a victim (or vice versa).

Whether that evidence is allowed in to be heard during the trial is a separate issue entirely and - as has been pointed out - up to the judge.

Similarly, Nazis (in the US) have the right to freedom of speech, however distasteful I consider what they say (my background is Jewish).

I'm a liberal leftie, but we can't have one set of rules for those we like/approve of and another for those we don't. I'm also one of those who think that Zimmerman sounds like a sleazebag and was clearly not justified in what he did - but that still does not justify the prosecution withholding evidence that they're afraid might help his defense.

Just sayin'... :7)

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 13 - 07:19 PM

Lets do a little review...

Zimmerman sees Martin and calls police...

Police dispatcher tells Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle and that real cops were on the way...

Zimmerman disobeys police and gets out of vehicle with a gun...

Zimmerman kills Martin...

That's the case here, folks...

What pictures are/were on Martin's phone have nothing to do with the facts...

Seems that Zimmerman's lawyer is trying to use a defense that if it were a rape the victim would be blames for looking good...

This is a very distasteful defense...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 13 - 03:40 PM

In this instance he's right.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 13 - 03:34 PM

BLINDFOLDED? Hell, he can cut and paste mountains of bullshit IN HIS SLEEP!

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 13 - 03:31 PM

". . . GODDAMN JUDGE WILL DECIDE ON THIS CASE. TAKE IT UP WITH HIM!!"

What if it ends up being a female judge? Huh? HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 31 May 13 - 03:29 PM

I hear you Fut, but the real trial is the one that BB is conducting on all us liberal hypocrites. Basically it's the same show trial he conducts on most threads. He assigns us all one opinion and then tries to convict us all for it. He only has middling prosecutorial skills but can cut and paste blindfolded.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 13 - 03:21 PM

However, I don't see the purpose of the thread,


There is none. Beardy doesn't have to have a purpose to post nonsensical crap ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 May 13 - 03:20 PM

I guess people can't read. IT IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE THIS. THE CASE IS GOING TO TRIAL AND GODDAMN JUDGE WILL DECIDE ON THIS CASE. TAKE IT UP WITH HIM!!

Are we clear now?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Elmore
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:54 PM

Trolled again, damn it. Is this the same individual using different names?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:40 PM

I'm with Bruce on this. Withholding evidence is unethical and unfair, whether done by the defense, the prosecution, the police or whoever.

I've been on the receiving end of such unethical treament in the past, and I won't soon forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:22 PM

What is the point of this? It will go to trial soon enough and a judge can decide what's what. This thread seems to me to be nothing than stupid trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:17 PM

'The Judge can certainly disallow this evidence- BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE, even if it is NOT allowed at the trial. The Prosecution is NOT allowed to decide what it turns over.'

Bingo, BB. An' that's the truth!

Again, I will let the judge be the judge of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:14 PM

'The Judge can certainly disallow this evidence- BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE, even if it is NOT allowed at the trial. The Prosecution is NOT allowed to decide what it turns over.'

Bingo, BB. An' that's the truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 01:50 PM

My concern is that it is OK for it to fail, in the posts of so many here that I would not trust to remain out of a lynch mob.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 31 May 13 - 01:46 PM

"Nelson has set a full hearing on the turning over of evidence for next week."

I post the above again as a reference.

I will wait to see what the judge has to say in the hearing before deciding what really happened here. You see, I do have some faith in the system and am willing to let it play out.

Does the system always work? Of course not, I am just not ready to assume that in this case it has already failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 01:39 PM

KB,

That is what JUDGES do, NOT the prosecutors.


If YOU were in court, would YOU want the prosecutor to be able to withhold evidence that YOU DON'T KNOW about, and NOT have a judge rule on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 01:37 PM

"Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

"I was saddened by it, but I'm not surprised," he said.

....
"I'm an officer of the court and I'm obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it's by the defense or prosecution," White said.






We have an example of an honest man ( the former prosecutor) seeing a potential miscarraige of justice ( if Zimmerman is let off because of the actions taken by the prosecution), and most in this thread turn around and jump on the defendant.

If THAT is an example of the " faith in the jury system" then maybe some need to be irritated. Why not just string him up from the nearest tree, since Bobert has already declared him guilty, and sees no need for the law to be followed in this case?